CentricStorm's forum posts

Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

[QUOTE="CaptainHarley"]

Leveling up is the worst thing to happen to multiplayer FPS since the birth of multiplayer FPS.Dick_Derringer

concur

No, leveling is a great thing that encourages the players to keep playing and to improve their game statistics. Not-leveling shooters are great with skill-based, arcadey run 'n gun mp shooters, as Quake 3 Arena or Unreal Tournament, but this kind of skill focused shooters are dead, since most of fps players are currently console players, where the auto aim and the lack of skill (autoregenerative live/shields) are a must.

So, since true competitive skill based shooters are dead -or mostly dead- in both PC and consoles, if you ship a shooter with a mp and yu want to be succesful you need to implement ranks, global stats and unlockable stuff.

Too true. Skill-based competitive FPS games died out a long time ago. I still think that ranks, stats and unlocks are a good thing in any game because they add to the replayability of any multiplayer. From the gameplay videos, Crysis 2 just seems like a casual version of Crysis Wars. And, in terms of the multiplayer skill requirement, Crysis Wars was already a dumbed-down version of the original Crysis.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
Looks good, especially for consoles, but it won't match Crysis in terms of graphical realism and technical detail.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
[QUOTE="siddhu33"]

Well that explains it then.......

Is this your own writing, or is there a link to this?

This is my own writing so it's just a summary of how virtual 3D can be shown on 2D displays. I looked it up when Nvidia released 3D Vision for PC games. It explains the main ideas behind how that works, and seeing as noone knows any different, it seems likely that 3D will be done on the main consoles in a similar way. I would highly doubt that the next consoles resort to the use of red/blue coloured glasses.
Doesnt split screen just give you 2 cameras? =/ .... not the same as rendering everything twice in different colour modes.Birdy09
Yes, split-screen is just the rendering of a separate scene for each player on divided portions of a display. This still causes a large drop in performance because, as explained in my previous post, if players are looking in different directions or are in entirely different places then the game will have to render two completely different images for each of them. Modern 3D virtualisation involves the rendering of alternate frames from two slightly different perspectives, with object depth (the apparent distance of objects in the game) being altered dynamically to give the appearance of a 3D image, without requiring the discolouring commonly associated with the use of classic 3D red/blue tinted glasses. This is why double the framerate is required for an image to appear equally as smooth as a 2D display running with an equivalent framerate - every two frames are effectively representing a single frame of the game, just from two slightly altered perspectives to give the 3D depth effect.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
Why does rendering a virtual 3D image require so much more processing power than a split-screen? In split screen the two 'screens' are not rendered in full size. They are rendered in most cases at half size. For a 720p game, the singleplayer is displayed in 1280x720, while in two player split-screen this would translate in to the rendering of two separate 640x720 or 1280x360 images (whichever direction the screen is divided in). This is still the same number of total pixels, so on its own will not have any impact on performance. The main reason that split-screen takes more processing power is that if those two players happen to be looking at a different part of the game (e.g. they are facing opposite directions, or they are in different places on the map), then two completely different images will have to be rendered for each player. However, despite this posing an obvious drop in performance, it is rarely going to be as severe as found in 3D display rendering. Another possible cause of split-screen performance loss is that usually the field of view will be raised by a considerable amount to make up for the small screen area each player has allocated to them. The effect of this reason won't be as significant as the first one though. When displaying a game in 3D, alternate frames must be rendered from slightly different perspectives to give the impression of a 3D image. This means that to display a game in virtual 3D, the full size screen must be rendered twice for each frame - for a 720p game running at 30fps, this would mean the rendering of two 1280x720 30fps images at the same time, obviously requiring double the hardware effort for this part of the display rendering. However, this is not the only reason - the extra work required to calculate the dynamically altering depth of objects in the game will also play a part in stressing hardware. Contrary to what someone else said, things which are not directly rendered on to the image on screen, such as the AI or physics, do not have to be rendered twice either for 3D display or for split-screen. Things like the objects and textures that are affected by the AI or the game's physics are rendered twice, but that doesn't mean that the AI or physics themselves are processed twice. In split-screen, if players are in completely different places (really unlikely in most games) then new AI and physics calculations must be done, but never will the same AI or physics have to be calculated twice in a row just to be displayed from 2 separate perspectives. Remember that just because the rendering of the game on a display is the only thing you see, it is far from the only process going on in a game.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
Felt just a little too much like an expansion to COD4 but it was still an excellent game...wasn't the best by any means though.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
honestly I think MS conference made sense. It was basically about a new system launch and it had all the qualities to what a new system launch would be. Ms doesnt really talk about its games until there out for the year you dont see to much about things that are years off like 1.5-2+ years. Ms will have the worst show this year but honestly it shouldnt be considered that bad considering what I mentioned before that it was like a conference for launching a new system. xbox360isgr8t
Is this post relevant to this thread? [QUOTE="Rockman999"][QUOTE="tmntPunchout"]

No they are grasping for that imaginary tiger in front of you.

Let's ask their BFF Oscar.

Is this another reference to the false assumption that I am an Xbox 360 fanboy? This thread was only intended to highlight a weakness of the PS3, and the Xbox 360 was only used as an example of how 16:10 resolution support can be added successfully in a firmware update; it was not used for direct comparison purposes.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
[QUOTE="gugler990"]

[QUOTE="akira2465"]

New account? Check ,Old argument from 2006? Check ,Epic Fail? Check ,Thanks for playin:)

thread ended before it begun

I didn't realise that a false statement could end a thread. Last time I checked, neither system supported 1440x900 or 1680x1050 back in 2006, and it wasn't until late 2008 that support was added for the 360 in a firmware update. I'm commenting on, and asking why the PS3 can't have a similar update. Seems simple enough considering the amazing power that the PS3 supposedly possesses.
The PS3 has the best graphical games this gendjsifer01
The PS3 has the best graphics of this generation? Are you seriously sure about that?
...dc...nitsud_19
What do you mean by 'dc'? There are numerous possible interpretations that I can think of for that abbreviation. Must be pretty good to invalidate every point I have raised.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts

So now resolutions matter?

Ragnarok1051
Since when did resolutions not matter? When did I ever claim otherwise?

Aren't games made in 16:9 format with 4:3 there as well? You know this and still by an oddly shaped monitor?

Pug-Nasty
Perhaps I didn't buy my monitor with console gaming in mind, or perhaps I knew that 16:10 was common enough to be supported by the Xbox 360. Never knew that 16:10 monitors were classed as 'odd'.
yay the 360 fanboys are attacking againRTUUMM
Wait a second...who said that I was in any way an Xbox 360 fanboy? I never said that the PS3 was the lesser system, only that it doesn't support 16:10 resolutions and that the Xbox 360 does.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts

New account? Check ,Old argument from 2006? Check ,Epic Fail? Check ,Thanks for playin:)

akira2465
I didn't think that either system supported these resolutions back in 2006. All I'm doing is highlighting the fact that even now, years later, the PS3 still doesn't support those resolutions, whereas Microsoft somehow managed to add the feature in a single firmware update towards the end of 2008 for the Xbox 360. If the PS3 has such superior hardware, why are Sony incapable of supporting these resolutions? Or is it because Sony prefer to make TVs with only 16:9 resolutions and they don't want their console to support rival display companies' products? A while ago I read a thread in which someone claimed that the 'only logical choice' of console for a PC owner was a PS3. I feel that this is untrue seeing as with my PC-orientated monitor I will have a poor gaming experience with a PS3 in comparison to using a 360.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
The Xbox 360 supports both 1440x900 and 1680x1050 screen resolutions, while the PS3 does not. Sure, these are merely upscaled resolutions done by the Xbox 360's GPU (or scaler chip) and with black bars added, and I can imagine a lot of people will argue that 'your TV or monitor will just upscale the image anyway, so there is no difference'. Yeah, there's no difference in the final output resolution; but there certainly is a difference in the image quality of said output. Just because almost all TVs and monitors can upscale a 720p signal to their native resolution doesn't change the fact that, in the case of most small, budget-range 19" and 22" widescreen monitors, their scaling ability is poor. After all, it makes perfect sense to the manufacturers - why would they incorporate expensive, top-of-the-line upscaling chips in to their low end displays? No way am I willing to run games at 720p while leaving the monitor the job of upscaling to an undetailed and blurred image with increased latency. By not supporting these standard 16:10 resolutions, Sony have alienated a large group of people. The Xbox 360 does a far better job of upscaling its internally rendered video to 1440x900 or 1680x1050 than most displays of this size can do, so Microsoft made a good move by including the resolution in the NXE firmware update.